Tuesday, 11 February 2014

MEDIA LAW: CINEMATOGRAPH ACT


        The act came into force all over India except in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. In Sikkim it came in to effect in 1983.

Under this Act "Adult" means a person who has completed his eighteenth year, "Cinematograph" includes any apparatus for the representation of moving pictures or series of pictures, "film" means a cinematograph film, "regional officer" means a regional officer appointed by the Central Government and "Tribunal" means the Appellate Tribunal.

For the purpose of sanctioning films for public exhibition, the Board of Film Certification formed by the Central Government shall consist of a Chairman and 12-25 other members. The Chairman shall receive salary and allowance and the other members shall receive such allowances or fees for attending the meetings of the Board.

Examination (4) and certification (5A) of films:

Any person desiring to exhibit any film shall make an application to the Board for a certificate and after examining the film the Board may:

(i) Sanction the film for unrestricted public exhibition and grant "U" certificate.

[Regarding any material in the film, if it is necessary to caution that any child below the age of twelve years may be allowed to see such a film should be considered by the parents or guardian of such child, the Board may sanction the film for unrestricted public exhibition and grant a "UA" certificate.]

(ii) Sanction the film for public exhibition restricted to adults and issue “A” certificate, or

(ii) (A) sanction the film for public exhibition restricted to members of any profession or any class of persons, having regard to the nature, content and theme of the film and issue “S” certificate; or

Note: A certificate granted by the Board under this Section shall be valid throughout India for a period of ten years.

(iii) Direct the applicant to carry out such excisions or modifications in the film as it thinks necessary before sanctioning the film for public exhibition under any of the foregoing clauses; or

(iv) Refuse to sanction the film for public exhibition.

 The Board shall take any decision only after giving an opportunity to the applicant for representing his views in the matter.

 Principles for guidance in certifying films :

  The film or any part of it should not be against the interests of [(Ins. by Act 49 of 1981] the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or involve defamation or contempt of court or incite any offence.

 Notes: Censorship in India has full justification in the field of the exhibition of cinema films in the interest of society. It is justified under the Constitution.

Finally, it is not elements of rape, leprosy, sexual immorality which should attract the censor's scissors but how the theme is handled by the producer.

Monday, 3 February 2014

MOVIE REVIEW:


Down the rabbit hole you go to visit Disney’s latest adaptation of the classic tale, Alice in Wonderland. The film is drenched with 3D visuals and the signature Gothic style of master filmmaker Tim Burton. The basic premise along with the talented cast led by newcomer Mia Wasikowska sounds like a recipe for cinematic gold, but overall it comes across as a bit uneven.

The Players:

  • Director: Tim Burton
  • Writer: Linda Woolverton, Lewis Carroll (Books, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass)
  • Cast: Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, Mia Wasikowska, Anne Hathaway, Crispin Glover, Michael Sheen, Matt Lucas, Alan Rickman, Stephen Fry, Barbara Windsor, Paul Whitehouse, Timothy Spall
  • Cinematography: Dariusz Wolski

The Plot:

The film is based on a combination of Lewis Caroll’s books Alice Adventures in Wonderland and the unofficial sequel, Through the Looking Glass. The story centers on a 19-year-old Alice, who makes a dramatic return to the fantasy land she visited as a child. She is the only hope the inhabitants have against the rising threat of the evil Red Queen (Carter). She must fulfill a prophecy that names her as the savior of the suppressed kingdom, while trying to find her way back home to her would-be fiance.

The Good:

  • Helena Bonham Carter: The Red Queen was the most interesting character to watch in this film, and it wasn’t just because she’s the villain. Carter manages to show a lot vulnerability regardless of her tough exterior that makes the audience relate to her. Even though she does wrongful  things, you feel compassion because you know deep down she’s acting out of the hurt and rejection she’s felt most of her life.
  • Use of 3D: Unlike most films that come out these days, the 3D element wasn’t the biggest selling point for Alice. It’s there, it’s present, but it’s not overwhelming. It serves a purpose and gives you that depth of field without being over the top.
  • Music: The score is one of the most important parts of this film because it keeps you interested with the story when the narration starts to drag. It takes your mind into this mystical world and you feel like a kid again. It transports you to that special place.
  • Humor: Like most Burton films there were a lot of humorous moments mixed in with the darker portions of the story. The Red and White Queen both have their time to shine, and there’s an interesting use of dance that Alice and the Mad Hatter exhibit at key moments in the film that was hilarious. There’s only one word that can be used to describe it, “Futter-wacking.” Believe me, when you watch the movie you’ll get what it means.

The Bad:

  • The Mad Hatter: Johnny Depp did a great job in this film, but the character of the Mad Hatter was the uneven element I referred to earlier. He was a bipolar British man who turned Scottish when he got upset. The Mad Hatter is essentially crazy, but in an attempt to alter him for a new generation they risk confusing the hell out of fans of the original.

Overall:

Alice in Wonderland is a fun ride that you wouldn’t mind getting on once, but you’d hold off until the DVD to get on again. The performances are great, the music is fantastic, the visuals are polished, but the story is essentially the same. It’s the same Alice she’s just in a new outfit. But even though it’s not the greatest movie it’s still worth a viewing and the youngsters will definitely enjoy it.

Wednesday, 30 October 2013

Women and Media Ethics

Media is the means or medium through which information is shared by people at large. The objective of Media ethics is to protect and promote the interest of readers, listeners, and viewers and people in general.  It spells out the news for news writers and editors to ensure objectivity and accuracy in presentation of facts or information.  Objectivity should be the watch word of a medium person. There should never be any room for distorted information amounting to misrepresentation of truths. Media fails to discharge its bounden obligation, if accuracy is not maintained.  Facts must be presented without exaggeration or distortion so that they remain immune to possible public resentment or adverse legal proceedings.
If stating the facts are prejudicial to the interest of the individual and the society, it is better that such truths be not made public.
Yellow journalism is used pejoratively to refer to journalistic practices that focus on scandals and scams by publishing sensational news, especially involving key celebrities and women.  Tabloid journalism essentially offers an independent perspective. Thereby it stands distinguished from other competing media agencies.  They feature local developments and entertaining contents.  Bias of any kind is contrary
to the cannons of journalism. Integrity, Independence and accountability constitute the core principles of journalistic ethics.   Media ought to respect the privacy of individuals such obligation sterns from the right to privacy on part of the individual.  Names of photographs of visitors of rape, abduction and sexual assault leading to their identification are not to be published.
Media should exercise caution by way of catering information so that it doesn’t become unfair in relation to a person, group or community. Media should have due respect for the indigenous tradition, culture and sentiments of the people.  It is unhealthy to hurt the sentiment of a group or community.  Commercialism is permissible to the extent it doesn’t violate the basic ethical standards.
Women are now seriously examining how the developments in the media since globalization has engendered or hindered their progress and struggle for equality. As a powerful socialising agent, media has become an important tool as well as site of struggle for women seeking to eliminate sexism and violence against women.
The role of media remains crucial in communicating and popularising women’s issues, concerns, and actions from women’s perspective. Media otherwise has the power to shut out and further make invisible the women’s agenda.

The globalized media, caters information designed to build up a consumer-oriented culture. The media’s target readership is urban, westernised, rich and middle class consumers. There is at times complete negligence of gender related issues. Women in the globalized media are seen mostly as consumers as well as commodities. Print media has undergone profound changes in the last two decades. Both vernacular and English print media has had a compound impact on the readers. Women and women related issues and news are presented more but in a context and perspective which may not be empowering.  Visual media has engulfed the lives of people. TV too has done its bit in promulgating women issues. A study conducted by 'Sansristi' a center for gender development, aims to read critically the representation of portrayal of Women in the print  and visual media.  The study covered both national and local dailies, Magazines and also the T.V. programmes.  A local news paper ‘Dharitri’ rarely provides news on rural and  marginalized women in the state, who are hit the most by the
onslaught of globalization. The news paper usually  carries provocative and advertisement exposing women’s bodies and depicting female sexuality.  This certainly defeats media ethics.  A local magazine ‘Kadambini’ mainly depict women as only capable of doing household work and wearing loads of jewellery.  The magazine focuses on the upper class life style, consumerism and the luxuries, which have become an indispensable part of the upper crust of the society.  Issues relating to the marginalized women and the day to day reality of women are  completely sidelined.  Media covers the marginalized women  but marginally. The most disturbing fact is that media is more inclined  towards the elites, not to these women, towards glamour not towards struggle and empowerment.
Dr. Jayanti Jagadev,  N-3/94, IRC Village, Bhubaneswar-751015.

When silence speaks loudest: the power of the blank front page

Rather than quietly submit to a libel ruling restricting press freedom, the Ecuadorian paper El Universo published a near blank front page last week. CNN reportedthat the white space filled all but the bottom of the paper, where the paper published an Ayn Rand quote that said, in part, "When you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice, you may know that your society is doomed."
The blank page followed a judge's decision to sentence editorial page editor Emilio Palacio to three years in jail for writing an editorial criticizing the president Rafael Correa. According to The Miami Herald, the offending article called Correa a dictator.
It was not the first time Correa reacted strongly against the press. He has called Ecuador's media "political actors who are trying to oppose the revolutionary government." His previous run-ins with the press includes a lawsuit against a director of daily La Hora for an article describing his actions as president as "shameful". He is also pursuing legal charges against two investigative journalists who revealed that the president's brother had gotten large contracts with the government.
In the face of these tight press restrictions, a blank page can speak loudest. Newspapers that impose censorship in such an obvious manner both attract reader attention and cleverly navigate a system in which they are penalized for speaking out. Censorship is a tricky issue to draw attention to because readers cannot physically see it. Publishing a blank page pushes the issue to the forefront of news. Journalists are denied press freedoms, and then in turn deny the public the news it expects.
Newspapers all over the world have used the 'black page' tactic. Earlier in March, six Estonian national dailies published a blank front page or a black page inside their newspaper to protest a proposed law that would punish journalists for protecting their sources. WAN-IFRA joined the newspapers in condemning the law.
Similarly, Hungary's newspaper organized a blank page protest last December due to a proposed law sanctioning "unbalanced coverage", according to BBC. The bill stipulated that Hungarian media outlets would have to fill at least half their programming with European productions and sanctioned breaches of rules on coverage of sex, violence, or alcohol. The law was passed despite the blank page protest and an online explanation of the proposal's dangers by Judit Bayer, a Hungarian journalist.
Italian newspapers took the concept even further last year, imposing a nearly-complete 24-hour news blackout protesting a proposed gagging law. The black-out was a radical approach to press freedom threats. Journalists feared the law would protect politicians, especially from scandal, by forbidding journalists to print transcripts of police-intercepted phone conversations. However, not everyone in media agreed that it would be the most effective strategy. Il Giornale, owned by Burlusconi's brother Paolo, continued to print through the blackout. The editor explained that while he disapproved of the gagging law, he believed that the media's pitfall would be to "put the gags on ourselves".
Whether blank pages are a "gag" or an asset is unclear. Some, such as the effort in Hungary, have failed to mobilize readers and change government policies. However, blank pages are an important means of drawing attention to an issue. When La Salle University dealt with an embarrassing story about a marketing professor inviting exotic dancers to an off campus symposium, the dean of students told the student newspaper that it was not allowed to run the story as a headliner. He instructed the student paper to run the story below the fold, a sanction students technically complied with by leaving the top half of the paper blank. In this context, the move is especially effective, as readers are not being deprived of a story. Instead, the half blank page brought deliberate attention to the article.
To commemorate World Press Freedom Day this year, WAN-IFRA sponsored a "White Space" initiative on May 3rd, in which some editors agreed to publish blank space on the front page of the paper to highlight the importance of a free press. However, the planned date of the initiative fell right after one of the biggest news stories of the year, Osama Bin Laden's death, and did not draw the attention it hoped.
Blank page protests are best used sparsely. Although they deprive the public of the news they depend on, when done right, they also draw attention to invisible issues. A constrained press cannot deliver unflattering stories to better inform voters, which is a crucial component of a functioning democracy. Ecuadorian papers should not bet that a 'blank page' tactic will overturn the unfavorable verdict, but in this case, it can make a statement louder than words.

Changes in the Ethic of Television

In television, everything has changed: the screen in the home is bigger and flatter, the styles of programming, the choice of delivery systems, and the business of television itself is different from what it was a half-century ago. 

While I work hard to keep up with technology and embrace the ever-quickening pace of change, I am concerned about what has happened to the television business we loved and what's yet to come. I'm concerned as a television producer, writer and director. Moreover, I'm concerned as a parent...and an American citizen. Trust me—my concern is real.

I have concern that the television business as we know it—no matter how profitable for some—is at risk for all. At risk because we have abandoned precepts that balanced entertainment and responsibility; because we have confused fiction with truth; because we have redefined the word "reality."

I'm more than concerned; I’m distressed and disheartened. And most of all, I'm disappointed in what's become of television and radio, press and journalism. And I can't believe what it's done and is doing to the nation.

Is there any reason we should be surprised by the shouting matches we see at a televised "town hall meeting" after a generation has grown up on beat-downs that are passed off as "television talk shows"? Where's the difference? The public now sees such yelling as completely acceptable behavior—commonplace. 

Is there any reason we should be surprised by the threats of violence—and actual violent attacks—against members of Congress and other political leaders after the verbal fights that are encouraged on weekly "reality" shows in the name of entertainment and  for the sake of ratings?

Are we too naive to think this sort of content doesn't influence behavior? I’m convinced that it does. And deep down we have to know it.

Is there any reason we should be surprised that the country is so polarized when, on TV competition series, you either win or you lose? But if you lose on one of those shows, you're not through. You get the chance to badmouth the winner, guaranteeing that your video will go viral and you may get picked for another show.

For months, through the presidential primaries and caucuses, we’ve been in a downward spiral of "political-speak" where opinions on health care, contraception, and the economy pass for fact.  Sadly, it won’t end with the political conventions.  Expect the volume to rise as the arguments become louder, angrier and too often based on misstatements, half-truths or lies.

It was Mark Twain who wrote, "A lie can travel halfway around the world in the time that the truth is putting its boots on." Through hate radio’s microphones and television’s skewed newscasts, this perspective is more true today than ever.

We had the means to educate, entertain and inform an American citizenry; to move the country forward. For years the networks and local stations did that. Washington safeguarded the process through strict license renewal procedures aimed at assuring that stations were held accountable to the communities they served. 

Coming up in this business as a rock DJ at WHUC, in Hudson, New York, I knew the "rules." We broke for news on the hour and the half-hour.. The result, across the country: if you listened to radio, even "top 40" radio, you heard the news.

In local television, we had to canvass viewers with community ascertainment surveys to base our public affairs record and create programming that would address the needs and concerns of a diverse city. That was at WBZ-TV in Boston and every television station across the country. The result: television shows that mattered locally.

The issues were the central focus, not boisterous personalities who considered themselves above the news...or worse yet, as important as the news itself.

But that has all changed.  If the public owns the airwaves, as the Communications Act of 1934 maintains, show me how the public is better served today, without expectation of news or programming about community issues on most stations.

Of course, we can't reset the clock. But with everything that's changed in the last 25 years, is the principle of free speech better honored today given all the hate speech that's carried daily on America's radio and TV? Are the media more responsive to the cities and towns they reach when the concept of local ownership is a thing of the past? Is prime time television really better than it used to be?

Traditionally, there's something unique, brave and wonderful about our voice. Not just the sound and the volume, but what we have to say to the world. Yet those of us in the news and entertainment business—the story-tellers of the American experience—are not the gate-keepers of the media. Congress, the FCC, political parties, lobbyists, sponsors and special interest groups are. And, in turn, through legislation, too many of the monolithic broadcast and cable giants have become virtually uncontrolled, and maybe, by now, uncontrollable. And along the way the press is less like the heralded fifth estate of old and more like a slum landlord, posting eviction notices on the time-honored basics of unbiased reporting and intelligent debate.

We—all of us—let this happen through both action and inaction, through trusting others and through promises that were never kept.

No matter where you stand on political lightning rods like the old Fairness Doctrine, media consolidation, and Internet neutrality, can we agree that, as producers, writers, directors, reporters, actors and artists (and as viewers and listeners) we have all lost something precious? Can we agree that we miss it?

I believe we create less worthwhile content in a 500-channel television universe than we did on four channels. And, though we are no less creative, we have fewer creative opportunities. As a result, American culture is really on the line. We are exporting the worst imaginable images to the rest of the world through television, and we've compromised the meaning of "responsible broadcasting" at home. We've shown how easy it is to trade civility, honesty and respect for 15-minutes-of-fame.

Back to "reality TV." We all have guilty pleasures and watch a few shows. But even a little Internet research, or a glance at TV Guide reveals that we have been shown more than 700 reality shows in recent years. Multiplied by 8, 13, 26, or 100 episodes, and you'll get the true picture of television these days.

And what's real about most "reality TV"? Very, very little. The shows are manipulated, assisted, time-shifted, pre-arranged and re-arranged, and still they're called "unscripted." We're told there's no acting. Nothing could be further from the truth. The impact is profound and probably permanent. By now, too many viewers, let alone network executives, have grown up on this unreal "reality."

Is there an alternative?  No.  We are left with a marketplace where bookstores are quickly disappearing and publishing is in a tailspin; an America where public education, public television and public radio broadcasts are de-valued and de-funded; and where the network financial bottom line can't seem to buck the trend.

Last year was the anniversary of a seminal speech about television. Vital Speeches of the Day considers it one of the 25 speeches that changed the world. Number 22 in fact. It was delivered May 9, 1961 before the National Association of Broadcasters. The speaker—then-FCC Chairman Newton Minow. Though he has since clarified his comments, they bear repeating today in the original context as reported. Chairman Minow stated:

When television is good, nothing—not the theater, not the magazines or newspapers—nothing is better. But when television is bad, nothing is worse.  I invite you to sit down in front of your television set when your station goes on the air and stay there without a book, magazine, newspaper, profit-and-loss sheet or rating book to distract you—and keep your eyes glued to that set until the station signs off. I can assure you that you will observe a vast wasteland.

But that "vast wasteland" of 1961 included Bonanza, Walt Disney's Wonderful World of Color, The DuPont Show of the Week, Ed Sullivan Show, Jack Benny, Alcoa Premiere, Alfred Hitchcock Presents, Dick Powell, The Dick Van Dyke Show, Red Skelton, The Steve Allen Show, Naked City, Perry Como, David Brinkley's Journal, Armstrong Circle Theatre, The Untouchables, Dr. Kildare, Ben Casey, CBS Reports, 77 Sunset Strip, The Bell Telephone Hour, Rawhide, Route 66, and Twilight Zone. That was the schedule that Newton Minow criticized.

It looks pretty good from 50 years out!

For the most part, those remarkable shows, and many classics that followed, fiction and non-fiction alike, have given way to a schedule that we should be ashamed of. It has transformed our industry, our businesses, our culture and our lives. And while there is good work done by good people, too much of TV today depicts the worst in us. And the truth of the matter is—it’s not true.

Is it possible to bring the noise level down on today's TV programming so we can hear the heartbeat of the American spirit? Truth be told, there are dynamic portrayals of the American spirit in some observational documentary series. And a handful of television or cable networks continue to provide time on their schedules for programming that is truly excellent.

But generally speaking, many programmers set the bar they are trying to reach so low, we trip over it when we, as creators of content, go in to pitch anything meaningful. The American spirit is hardly visible through a cloud that obscures better content. That cloud is reality TV. 

Monday, 28 October 2013

In television, everything has changed: the screen in the home is bigger and flatter, the styles of programming, the choice of delivery systems, and the business of television itself is different from what it was a half-century ago. 
 While I work hard to keep up with technology and embrace the ever-quickening pace of change, I am concerned about what has happened to the television business we loved and what's yet to come. 
I have concern that the television business as we know it—no matter how profitable for some—is at risk for all. At risk because we have abandoned precepts that balanced entertainment and responsibility; because we have confused fiction with truth; because we have redefined the word "reality."

I'm more than concerned; I’m distressed and disheartened. And most of all, I'm disappointed in what's become of television and radio, press and journalism. And I can't believe what it's done and is doing to the nation.

Is there any reason we should be surprised by the shouting matches we see at a televised "town hall meeting" after a generation has grown up on beat-downs that are passed off as "television talk shows"? Where's the difference? The public now sees such yelling as completely acceptable behavior—commonplace. 
 Is there any reason we should be surprised by the threats of violence—and actual violent attacks—against members of Congress and other political leaders after the verbal fights that are encouraged on weekly "reality" shows in the name of entertainment and  for the sake of ratings?
 Are we too naive to think this sort of content doesn't influence behavior? I’m convinced that it does. And deep down we have to know it.
 Is there any reason we should be surprised that the country is so polarized when, on TV competition series, you either win or you lose? But if you lose on one of those shows, you're not through. You get the chance to badmouth the winner, guaranteeing that your video will go viral and you may get picked for another show 
It was Mark Twain who wrote, "A lie can travel halfway around the world in the time that the truth is putting its boots on." Through hate radio’s microphones and television’s skewed newscasts, this perspective is more true today than ever.

We had the means to educate, entertain and inform an American citizenry; to move the country forward. For years the networks and local stations did that. Washington safeguarded the process through strict license renewal procedures aimed at assuring that stations were held accountable to the communities they served.  
In local television, we had to canvass viewers with community ascertainment surveys to base our public affairs record and create programming that would address the needs and concerns of a diverse city. That was at WBZ-TV in Boston and every television station across the country. The result: television shows that mattered locally.
           
But that has all changed.  If the public owns the airwaves, as the Communications Act of 1934 maintains, show me how the public is better served today, without expectation of news or programming about community issues on most stations.

Of course, we can't reset the clock. But with everything that's changed in the last 25 years, is the principle of free speech better honored today given all the hate speech that's carried daily on America's radio and TV? Are the media more responsive to the cities and towns they reach when the concept of local ownership is a thing of the past? Is prime time television really better than it used to be?

Traditionally, there's something unique, brave and wonderful about our voice. Not just the sound and the volume, but what we have to say to the world. Yet those of us in the news and entertainment business—the story-tellers of the American experience—are not the gate-keepers of the media. Congress, the FCC, political parties, lobbyists, sponsors and special interest groups are. And, in turn, through legislation, too many of the monolithic broadcast and cable giants have become virtually uncontrolled, and maybe, by now, uncontrollable. And along the way the press is less like the heralded fifth estate of old and more like a slum landlord, posting eviction notices on the time-honored basics of unbiased reporting and intelligent debate.

We—all of us—let this happen through both action and inaction, through trusting others and through promises that were never kept.

No matter where you stand on political lightning rods like the old Fairness Doctrine, media consolidation, and Internet neutrality, can we agree that, as producers, writers, directors, reporters, actors and artists (and as viewers and listeners) we have all lost something precious? Can we agree that we miss it?

I believe we create less worthwhile content in a 500-channel television universe than we did on four channels. And, though we are no less creative, we have fewer creative opportunities. As a result, American culture is really on the line. We are exporting the worst imaginable images to the rest of the world through television, and we've compromised the meaning of "responsible broadcasting" at home. We've shown how easy it is to trade civility, honesty and respect for 15-minutes-of-fame.

Back to "reality TV." We all have guilty pleasures and watch a few shows. But even a little Internet research, or a glance at TV Guide reveals that we have been shown more than 700 reality shows in recent years. Multiplied by 8, 13, 26, or 100 episodes, and you'll get the true picture of television these days.

And what's real about most "reality TV"? Very, very little. The shows are manipulated, assisted, time-shifted, pre-arranged and re-arranged, and still they're called "unscripted." We're told there's no acting. Nothing could be further from the truth. The impact is profound and probably permanent. By now, too many viewers, let alone network executives, have grown up on this unreal "reality."

Is there an alternative?  No.  We are left with a marketplace where bookstores are quickly disappearing and publishing is in a tailspin; an America where public education, public television and public radio broadcasts are de-valued and de-funded; and where the network financial bottom line can't seem to buck the trend.

It looks pretty good from 50 years out!
 For the most part, those remarkable shows, and many classics that followed, fiction and non-fiction alike, have given way to a schedule that we should be ashamed of. It has transformed our industry, our businesses, our culture and our lives. And while there is good work done by good people, too much of TV today depicts the worst in us. And the truth of the matter is—it’s not true.
 Is it possible to bring the noise level down on today's TV programming so we can hear the heartbeat of the American spirit? Truth be told, there are dynamic portrayals of the American spirit in some observational documentary series. And a handful of television or cable networks continue to provide time on their schedules for programming that is truly excellent.

But generally speaking, many programmers set the bar they are trying to reach so low, we trip over it when we, as creators of content, go in to pitch anything meaningful. The American spirit is hardly visible through a cloud that obscures better content. That cloud is reality TV.